Posted on 03/02/2007 3:19:00 AM PST by ricks_place
Yes, we know. He was more concerned about his reelection than getting to the bottom of the case.
Uh, its not up to you Mr. Nifong to suggest what, if any, is the significance of the evidence.
That is absolutely correct, as Nifong should (but evidently does not) know. In United States v. Smith, 77 F.3d 511, 514 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the D.C. Circuit noted that in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court "stress[ed] that a reviewing court must focus on the fairness of the trial the defendant actually received rather than on whether a different result would have occurred had the undisclosed evidence been revealed." As explained by the Court in Kyles, 514 U.S. at 439-40:
"This means, naturally, that a prosecutor anxious about tacking too close to the wind will disclose a favorable piece of evidence. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976) ('The prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.') This is as it should be. Such disclosure will serve to justify trust in the prosecutor as 'the representative . . . of a sovereignty . . . whose interest . . . in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.' Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). And it will tend to preserve the criminal trial, as distinct from the prosecutor's private deliberations, as the chosen forum for ascertaining the truth about criminal accusations."
In other words, it is for the jury, not the prosecutor, to decide whether favorable Brady information is credible; otherwise "prosecutors might, on a claim that they thought it unreliable, refuse to produce any matter whatever helpful to the defense, thus setting Brady at nought." Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir. 1985).
His first wife supported him while he went through school. Once he was finished he didn't need her any more. He took off with someone else and left his wife and little daughter. He is *not* a nice guy.
OK, so what DNA evidence would have refuted it? Perhaps finding DNA of multiple different men in each of her orifices, none of which matched any of the men that she identified?
I'm having a hard time thinking of any way that DNA evidence could have refuted the identification any more definitively than that.
You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. "Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?" First.. get a million dollars.
Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'?" Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!"
How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal."
Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?" Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"
I think Nifong goes down before the bar. He can't make these
bizzare denials make up for the fact he did not give the defense exculpatory evidence. This is the fatal shoe to drop.
Didn't Reagan used it in Iran-Contra.
Point 5 should be expanned as Nifong also claims he knew the defendants would get the underlying data, although Nifong argued against them getting it in court accusing the defense attorneys of a witch hunt, and thus he did not need to disclose those results to the defense in a report. Basically Nifong is saying that you get discloture only if you are rich enough to pay for your own expert to examine the data.
Disbarment is too lenient a punishment for this scumbag. He deserves hard time. You can bet that his behavior in the Lax case is not isolated. There could be dozens more people railroaded by Nifong.
The DA's race wasn't hotly contested when the case began. Nifong was at least twenty points behind Freda Black at that point. It only became hotly contested when black racists got behind Nifong because they wanted the white boys' heads delivered to them on Nifong's tin platter of justice.
This really should never have been a question. The jury is the trier of facts in the case given to them by the court. But for DAs playing fast and loose, this would never have come up. They forget who they work for, and that the public trust demands they seek justice, not just notches on their headboards.
Can you believe he actually put these words in print on paper and gave it to the N.C. Bar?
He is proving over and over how stupid he is.
Nifong knew he had no DNA before he had swampwoman's identifications, so that excuse doesn't cut it, either.
BS.
Fatal, probably, but I hope not the last shoe to drop. I want the identification shenanigans looked into by the bar.
CHARLIE ROSE: He handed over the prosecution to someone else. And the rape charges have been ...
MICHAEL EASLEY: They’re under investigation.
Clueless to the end, Mikey boy.
Is Easley always so stupid?
He is a complete simpleton; I'm amazed he's elected over and over.
He apparently is as dimwitted as Nifong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.